Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future?

[Rethel]

Mutations just happen spontaneously. Most mutations are not good, and mostly people die having them. However, people with positive mutations, mutations which give them any advantage, will always have more kids and over-populate the ones without these positive mutations.

Mutation you can have only in one person. If that person die before he mulitply
this mutstion will be dead with him also. And if this is recessive mutation - it can
be vanish very quickly in dominant population.

Look at Iranian plateu and India. Where are these original Aryans with blond
hair and blue eyes... they all vanished, even they were very numerous. Only in
some isolate villages light people still exist or the lighter genes are still present
in general population, but they show themselves very rare - every generation
they become rarer. And they still exist probably only because of later invasions
and colonisations of Greeks, Scythians, or even some slavic slaves. They are not
dead because of sun, but they became fewer because of dominant darker population.
That's all.

Not different parts of the world, they were all close by in Europe by Neolithic.

If this mutations create themselves in different parts undependently, that means
that this happend in different parts of the world - especialy in neolithic, when Europe
it was a whole planet with many different minicivilisations in every isolate village.

By invasions, by trading women, or any other way, positive mutations were introduced in the Northern Europe.

As you see, it could be reasonable.

In Northern Europe, the mutations found the perfect grounds, and rooted in, and multiplied in population.

So why Lapps, Nenets, Yakuts and so on, dont became fair by themselves, and why they still exist?

White people can live around the planet (these days) by the ways of civilization, They wear cloves to protect skin against UV radiation. Australians, or other colonial British in tropics, wore and wear hats, protection against the sun. Regardless of their protection, when you check statistics you will find out that Australians white people have most skin cancer cases in the world. Especially when suntanning came fashionable in 80s. Nature tells us that they don't have the best skin colour for that climate.

It doesn't proof anything. If they all would be naked, they surly wouldn't die - every one of 20
million, and they surely wouldn't become dark sikinned by themselves. It is simply impossible.

Eskimos and Inuits (people of Arctic) they all consume fresh (uncooked) seal liver, rich in vitamin D3. Liver of mammals is a storage of vitamins and minerals. Having diet like this, rich in vitamin D3, you don't need to suntan to get produce it. They also suntan a lot when possible.

As you see, always you can find an explanation. Fair people in Europe
didn't have enough sun, didn't eat good food... so... they all should be
dead - but they were not...

Look at Bedouins (lighter skin people in Sahara) they all wear cloths from head to toes to protect themselves against strong UV.

Another explanation. Always the same.
But... they are not fair by themselves... they are descendants of light european people - and this is only soure of their color.
Yakuts or Lapps, like normal Berbers or regular Bedouins in Levant, are not descendants of european fair people, and this is
only reason, why they are not fair skinned - when Lapps, Yakuts or Berbers met some light people, they absorbed genes and
some of them can be light - no becouse they had mutation, but because they had something new in their gen-pool. Without
that, every one of north populations were dark - hundrets of isolate small tribes. No one of them became fair by their own.
None of them. And light populations in souther countries lived very well - in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and so on. Only theat
of their existance were war, and mixing with another darker people, and this is only logical and prooved explanation.

This is the way they can survive there.

But you probably on purpouse don't see that this what you want to proof
doesn't work in real, and you don't see that your explanations of that fact
are disproofing your original statement.

See the difference between suntan grandma and pinck skin baby.

And? This is only proof, that some recessive genes allready exist in the population,
and they show themselves sometimes. Her dauther did not mutate by her own, and
if she is only one on big population she has zero chance to dominate all continent,
even if there exist some ten more dauthers in another parts of the continent

By the way, as you see, grandma, who becomes a descendant of paleolithic HG
from the north, is still... dark... her ascendants didn't die and didn't become lighter. :useless:

What it is this tribe Sunta?

Red head is just a sort of transition phase between Blond and Brunet.

But having this transition or laking of it, doesn't decide who will be dead and who will be alive.:cool-v:

 

[Aberdeen]

Show me photos of several Georgians and tell me mix of which races do the look like to you

I don't see what the problem is. Georgians appear to already be the well mixed people of the future that we've been discussing.

 

[Rethel]

I don't see what the problem is. Georgians appear to already be the well mixed people of the future that we've been discussing.

As we can see: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml there among the Georgians
can live some light people, because 1/5 of the whole male population have indoeuropean ascendents.
So, even if this 19% of them would be albinos' (but it isn't true) still 81% will be dark, so a regular man
from Georgia will be for normal european person darker than himself. Among the links which show me
LeBrok, is showing this map:

If enyone has any doubts I think this should ended this doubts.
If Kardu you still dont belive us, how we see your contry people,
go with 10 neighours in summer on the sun for whole day, and
after that tell us, how many of you have sun's scalds... Then
you will know how big percentage of Georgians is light...

 

[Vallicanus]

I don't see what the problem is. Georgians appear to already be the well mixed people of the future that we've been discussing.

How are Georgians well mixed?

They are Caucasoid and no darker than South Europeans.

 

[Rethel]

This is a very interesting photo.
It comes from this website: http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/inuit406.html

Those people are Eskimos.
So, they naturaly, have some european admixture.

But though they still have dark pigmentation.
Thoudands of thousands of years of living in the farest
north than european fair people lived didn't lighted them.
Even some european admixture didn't help with that.

On this site we can see another examples of dark people living without sun in cold climate.
What is amazing, they are still alive after thousands of years... in Europe they should be
dead since minimum 5000 years... but in America... everything is possible...

Those Eskimos are even darker than I thout.
I always assosiated them with dark eyes and hair.
But they skin is very dark too.

Another examples from LeBrok source:

 

[Kardu]

I don't see what the problem is. Georgians appear to already be the well mixed people of the future that we've been discussing.

You said Georgians look like mixed race people, so I am asking: show us the photos of real Georgians and tell us exactly which races were mixed to give their appearanece. You don't understand this simple question or are you playing dumb?

 

[Rethel]

Kardu,
do you know one of basic priciple of european civilization?

Nemo iudex in causa sua.

You want be albinoeuropean, follow european priciples.

This, that you don't like my post, or you disagree with my argumentation,
doesn't give you right to giving me warnings because I was writing on the
same topic as you. Did you give yourself warning too?

 

[LeBrok]

This is a very interesting photo.
It comes from this website: http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/inuit406.html

Those people are Eskimos.
So, they naturaly, have some european admixture.

But though they still have dark pigmentation.
Thoudands of thousands of years of living in the farest
north than european fair people lived didn't lighted them.
Even some european admixture didn't help with that.

On this site we can see another examples of dark people living without sun in cold climate.
What is amazing, they are still alive after thousands of years... in Europe they should be
dead since minimum 5000 years... but in America... everything is possible...

Those Eskimos are even darker than I thout.
I always assosiated them with dark eyes and hair.
But they skin is very dark too.

Another examples from LeBrok source:

Before you dive into a deep discussion with people who have spent a lot of time on this subject, please do a lot of reading to understand how genetics and natural selection work. Finding quick pseudo patterns, can only mislead you in a wrong direction. Here is one of the misleading examples.

Look, Europeans are darker than Inuits:

Don't you think it is a good idea to stop posting pictures of tanned people for the right comparison of skin colour?

There was a reason why I posted the picture with very suntanned grandmother and lighter skin (natural/untanned) Inuit baby. You missed the clue, didn't you?

 

[Rethel]

Don't you think it is a good idea to stop posting pictures of tanned people for the right comparison of skin colour?

I show you only examples which disproof theory, that living in the north (and some other
elements associated with that localization) are causing muntations in different places.
It seems fine and sound interesting, but it is unobservable occurrence - and this is the
reason, why I don't belive in spontaniously mutations in different places. Otherwise,
we would have several tribes in the north with fair hair or eyes. But we can observe
something totaly different. Genes don't come from nothing. They must be inherited.

 

[LeBrok]

I show you only examples which disproof theory, that living in the north (and some other
elements associated with that localization) are causing muntations in different places.
It seems fine and sound interesting, but it is unobservable occurrence - and this is the
reason, why I don't belive in spontaniously mutations in different places. Otherwise,
we would have several tribes in the north with fair hair or eyes.

Fair hair and eyes don't participate in vitamin D production, and are not necessary for people to live in higher latitudes.
Inuit and Eskimo arrival to the Arctic circle is fairly recent of last 3 thousand years. Their whitening process is not complete in such short time. It is possible, giving them few thousand more years, that they also will drift into whiter skin mutations, and could develop light hair and eyes in the process too. The biggest "secret" of how they can survive up North, not having the lightest possible skin, is their diet. When they catch a seal (the main staple of their diet) they always consume fresh uncooked seal liver first. Liver is a storage of vitamin D in mammals. This is how they supplement vitamin D3 from their diet, and don't need to get all of it from the sun. As you noticed from your posted pictures, they spend a lot of time outside producing lots of vitamin D, and tanning in the process. Ozone layer is thin letting UV through up North and lots of radiation bounces from snow. It is not difficult to tan. For long arctic night they have D3 in raw liver supplement.

This map above tells us that South Greenland gets more solar radiation than central Europe, not mentioning Scandinavia and GB.

But we can observe
something totaly different. Genes don't come from nothing. They must be inherited.

Mutation of genes come from nothing. They happen spontaneously, by accident, without a purpose. Most of them are bad, people get sick, and die without leaving children. This way the bad mutations are weeded out very quickly, and we don't even learn about most of them. From time to time a mutation happens that make a gene more efficient, or work in a way that benefits people in certain environment. When mutation like this happens it make people more effective, and increase survival of their offspring, and chance of surviving this positive mutation itself. This will happen even if the gene is recessive, just follow Mendel's law of gene expression. Sometimes the gene is not expressed in first generation, but it will be active in second. If the carrier of the gene have good few kids, the recessive gene will be expressed in first generation in couple of them. Then it will grow almost exponentially, as long as the benefit is there in same environment. Change of environment could nil the benefit, or even create disadvantage.
Like when white people go to Africa. They need to wear cloths, hats or use sunscreen. Without this protection they would die out due to melanoma in few generations.

Mutation you can have only in one person. If that person die before he mulitply
this mutstion will be dead with him also. And if this is recessive mutation - it can
be vanish very quickly in dominant population.

Sure. There were many more positive mutations that happened, but due to a bad luck of its carriers, we'll never know about them. I'm sure many with positive mutations died in freaky accidents, floods, killed in wars, before passing them to next generation. It doesn't mean that in some cases the positive mutations survive and spread inside population, benefiting everyone.

Here is a simple thought experiment.
Let's assume that what you say, about recessive genes not having chance to survive, is true. In this case, regardless if you believe in Adam and Eve, or small group of Homo Sapiens Out of Africa, people today would look exactly like the first humans, first parents, who we come from. No mutations, no changes in phenotype of people. The lonely mutations would always be washed off, deleted, over-bread by existing gene pool, according to your hypothesis.
By observable science, and by our own eyes, we can definitely agree that people around the planet are very divers in looks.
How is it possible to have such diversity of looks, if no new mutation took part in it? Did black people came to Europe from Africa, and one day they woke up all Caucasian? They went to Asia and one day woke up looking Asian? And so on on every continent. Somehow miraculously they diversified into races without help of new mutations.

If you are smart enough to understand that existing scientific research can't explain human diversification by mutations and natural selection, perhaps you want to entertain us with alternative hypothesis which make at least remote sense?

 

[Kardu]

Kardu,
do you know one of basic priciple of european civilization?

Nemo iudex in causa sua.

You want be albinoeuropean, follow european priciples.

This, that you don't like my post, or you disagree with my argumentation,
doesn't give you right to giving me warnings because I was writing on the
same topic as you. Did you give yourself warning too?

Because you are t r o l l i n g!

What albino? what a hell are you talking about? I say every group should preserve their identity, be it European, African or Asian. So stop demagogy now.
I am inclined to believe that you are not Polish, but Russian t r o l l, one of those from hundreds on service of kremlin.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-kremlins-*****-army/375932/

 

[Rethel]

Fair hair and eyes don't participate in vitamin D production, and are not necessary for people to live in higher latitudes.
Inuit and Eskimo arrival to the Arctic circle is fairly recent of last 3 thousand years. Their whitening process is not complete in such short time. It is possible, giving them few thousand more years, that they also will drift into whiter skin mutations, and could develop light hair and eyes in the process too. The biggest "secret" of how they can survive up North, not having the lightest possible skin, is their diet. When they catch a seal (the main staple of their diet) they always consume fresh uncooked seal liver first. Liver is a storage of vitamin D in mammals. This is how they supplement vitamin D3 from their diet, and don't need to get all of it from the sun. As you noticed from your posted pictures, they spend a lot of time outside producing lots of vitamin D, and tanning in the process. Ozone layer is thin letting UV through up North and lots of radiation bounces from snow. It is not difficult to tan. For long arctic night they have D3 in raw liver supplement.

As you see, theory which you're presenting made and press you to looking for many expenation on every ocasion.
You always need long process for everything - but during that time theory's laws dosen't work, because people are
still living and they don't need for that any positive mutation. Otherwise they will be dead. If in Europe people lived
in thise same conditions, they didn't have need for some positive mutations, because 1) they still lived without that
mutations, 2) people in another places (but even in the same, in Europe) which don't have that mutations are still
good without them. Dark pigmented people are living in every part of the world and even in Europe they are and
were through thousands of years very well. They didn't need in the past and still don't need that fair mutation.
Even if Eskimos are during that process (as you sugest) it isnt provoke by any outside natural process. Why?
because they are alive since many thousand years. Sugesting, that only in Europe people had not enough sun
or they can't find optimal food like eskimos did, is only true in theory, but not in observable world - even not
for Europe, because as we see from ancient genetic markers, in Europe (especialy during Ice Age) darker people
did very well, and they didn't need any light mutation to survive like any other people in the north, and still they
lived in Europe - even in the farest north, like Lapps. By the way, on the first looking it seems that more fair result
from ancient DNA came from more souther places than extreme north - but maybe this is only my selective memory

From historical and archological records compare with genetic evidence, lighter people lived on the eurasian stepp
from Ukraine to Altai, and some parts of european forest present day Russia. South Europe was dark as it today,
West Europe was darker than today, north Eurasia was inhabited by mongoloid HG (uralic people and paleoasian),
only Scandinavia is questionable place, but it seems to be the same.

Why? Coon wrote in some of his works, that oldest people from that region was mediterrenian and paleolithic types.
He didn't know, what pigmentation of this people was. Now we know, that first cro-magnonian people were probably
darker than lighter, that mediterrenian were by definition dark, and we know, that haplogroups I2 (which was original)
belonged to this darker populations. I1 became from south, where lighter types were not original, so this region probably
cannot be homland for that type of pigmantation. Even G2a-bearing group of people is get wind of to be a bearer of some
light pigmentation. But they came deffinitly not from the north.

When mutation like this happens it make people more effective, and increase survival of their offspring, and chance of surviving this positive mutation itself.

I could even agree with that, but as I trying to show you, this light mutations doesn't decide about survival.
People are living through thousends of years without them and they are very well with that lack of miracle.

Arctic circle is (rather was) settled by dark haird people in 100%.
And they didn,t have any need for positive light mutation.

Like when white people go to Africa. They need to wear cloths, hats or use sunscreen. Without this protection they would die out due to melanoma in few generations.

Even animals can protect themselves from sun, so I think, that people could do the same in the past.

They are not more stupid than animals. I am sure of that.

It doesn't mean that in some cases the positive mutations survive and spread inside population, benefiting everyone.

But only in theory, I am affraid.

Let's assume that what you say, about recessive genes not having chance to survive, is true. In this case, regardless if you believe in Adam and Eve, or small group of Homo Sapiens Out of Africa, people today would look exactly like the first humans, first parents, who we come from. No mutations, no changes in phenotype of people. The lonely mutations would always be washed off, deleted, over-bread by existing gene pool, according to your hypothesis.

Let assume.

This is much more easier!

In this theory, people came not from Adam and Eve, but from Noah, his three sons and three dauters in law.
So, they could be bearing 12 chromosoms for every genetic information. This pule were combined until they
were split somewhere in Mesopotamia in small patriarchal groups with their own language, they inbred
only inside their small group - and this could give every anthropological type which exist today. Some years
ago (probably) in National geografic I was reading, that group of people who populate Americas have only
70 people. How many language gorups combine with Y-hg and some phisical type egzised? 30? 50? Probably
not much more and some of them are very similar to each other in phisical apperience. So, in this theory
everything is almost perfect, especialy, when one group was lighter than the other. Light genes will not
vanished, when they were in small grup of people who later grow in number and colonized other lands.

By observable science, and by our own eyes, we can definitely agree that people around the planet are very divers in looks.
How is it possible to have such diversity of looks, if no new mutation took part in it?

From original gen pool and combination betwen elements of that pool.

Did black people came to Europe from Africa, and one day they woke up all Caucasian?

In that case, it is simple too. As you was somewhere writing, light pigmentation is onli a lacking of pigment. No big deal. It is not a new information, but lack of her.
If this happend in small group who after that grow in number - it is possible, like founder effect. But it is impossible in such huge territory like Europe and decide
by outside natural environment in many places of the continent in large gen-dominant population. In this laking of pigment accident ther is not need for laking of
sun, becouse albino live in Africa too. If they wouldn't be dispersal, you could have albino tribe in Africa as well. And they wouldn't be dead, because no one was
seeing massive albino deads because of the sun shining on the sky. This albino tribe must be very, very stupid and be sitting on the sun without clothing whole
days, day by day - this is illogical and impossible, and disproof your theory, that lacking of sun cousing lacking of pigment. Disproof also that mutation in many
places can dominate population - because albinos in Africa didn't dominate the population, even in one part of that continent. They could of course, but first they
should live together and after that grow in number and replaced totaly black people. It seems to be more planed action than only an accidance.

They went to Asia and one day woke up looking Asian? And so on on every continent. Somehow miraculously they diversified into races without help of new mutations.

As I said above: in small groups which had their own combination of pool of gens. Some were missing some recombind, and after that grown in number.
do you think that for example "mongoloid-looking-feature" mutated and evolved in whole Asia in thousands of black-african-looking communities at the
same time? This would be a miracle indeed...

If you are smart enough to understand that existing scientific research can't explain human diversification by mutations and natural selection, perhaps you want to entertain us with alternative hypothesis which make at least remote sense?

No, I don't want, but I strongly claim, that differences can only began to exist in small inbreding population, and enviorment
dosen't have anything to do with that, as I was ilustrate this with many proposals from differnet parts of the eath, and this
must happend with light pigmantation in european population. Some small tribe, whith light pigmentation grow in number and
after that dominate large parts of the continent either in creationist or evolutionary models, and this is most resonable explanation
without any hocus-pocus many places and endless thousands of years coincedences and bad nature environment in my opinion.

 

[Rethel]

Because you are t r o l l i n g!

And who decide? You, because you don't like my opinion and you are furious about that?

What albino? what a hell are you talking about? I say every group should preserve their identity, be it European, African or Asian. So stop demagogy now.

And I said only, that in eyes of europeans Georgians seems to be preety
dark. Do you want change my observation, because you are furious about
that? This is my opinion, and many others too and you cannot forbid our eyes
see what and how they see. This is not my fault, that you have some complexes
about darker pigmentation. This is your problem, not mine.

I am inclined to believe that you are not Polish, but Russian t r o l l, one of those from hundreds on service of kremlin. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-kremlins-*****-army/375932/

Are you normal or you forget some pills?

 

[LeBrok]

As you see, theory which you're presenting made and press you to looking for many expenation on every ocasion.
You always need long process for everything - but during that time theory's laws dosen't work, because people are
still living and they don't need for that any positive mutation. Otherwise they will be dead. If in Europe people lived
in thise same conditions, they didn't have need for some positive mutations, because 1) they still lived without that
mutations, 2) people in another places (but even in the same, in Europe) which don't have that mutations are still
good without them.

Not true. From genomes of ancient hunter gathers, who lived in Scandinavia, we know that they were not as light skin as today's Scandinavians. The new mutations made them lighter, better fitting, healthier, having more kids. These new lighter genes spread through population, because they gave them advantage over others. They both could live there with their skin tones, yet the lighter mutations turned to be more beneficial, therefore wide spread today.

Dark pigmented people are living in every part of the world and even in Europe they are and
were through thousands of years very well. They didn't need in the past and still don't need that fair mutation.
Even if Eskimos are during that process (as you sugest) it isnt provoke by any outside natural process. Why?
because they are alive since many thousand years. Sugesting, that only in Europe people had not enough sun
or they can't find optimal food like eskimos did, is only true in theory, but not in observable world - even not
for Europe, because as we see from ancient genetic markers, in Europe (especialy during Ice Age) darker people
did very well, and they didn't need any light mutation to survive like any other people in the north, and still they
lived in Europe - even in the farest north, like Lapps. By the way, on the first looking it seems that more fair result

Give us one example of black tribe who migrated to higher latitudes and survived their. Give us one example of white tribe who went to sub Saharan Africa and survived their. Please, skip colonial times and modern populations, as due to technology, clothing, supplements people of all colour can live everywhere these days.

from ancient DNA came from more souther places than extreme north - but maybe this is only my selective memory

From historical and archological records compare with genetic evidence, lighter people lived on the eurasian stepp
from Ukraine to Altai, and some parts of european forest present day Russia. South Europe was dark as it today,
West Europe was darker than today, north Eurasia was inhabited by mongoloid HG (uralic people and paleoasian),
only Scandinavia is questionable place, but it seems to be the same.

Just because they can survive, it doesn't mean that new better mutations can't pop up and give them more advantage in surviving. Again, if skin colour doesn't matter for surviving, why all people on earth are not black, like original out of Africa people? Why did they change if there was no need for a change?

Why? Coon wrote in some of his works, that oldest people from that region was mediterrenian and paleolithic types.
He didn't know, what pigmentation of this people was. Now we know, that first cro-magnonian people were probably
darker than lighter, that mediterrenian were by definition dark, and we know, that haplogroups I2 (which was original)
belonged to this darker populations. I1 became from south, where lighter types were not original, so this region probably
cannot be homland for that type of pigmantation. Even G2a-bearing group of people is get wind of to be a bearer of some
light pigmentation. But they came deffinitly not from the north.

From genomes of ancients, we know that whiter mutations showed up relatively recently. They didn't vanish, as you predicted for recessive genes, but conglomerated around Baltic and North Sea. Can you explain why these mutations like this area the most?

I could even agree with that, but as I trying to show you, this light mutations doesn't decide about survival.
People are living through thousends of years without them and they are very well with that lack of miracle.

It is not only about survival, but about advantage over other people. The most fit. Survival is like a base of something, then you can add up the improvements over the base. People got whiter in Northern Europe, they also got Lactose Persistent genes, and farmer genes from the south. They are all improvements over old hunter gatherer population. Now they can produce more or faster vitamin D3, they can drink raw milk to survive in case crops fail, and being farmers they can feed 10 times bigger population than hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherers could just survive, the new improved Scandinavians are thriving there.

Arctic circle is (rather was) settled by dark haird people in 100%.
And they didn,t have any need for positive light mutation.

Not really, there are also blond Sami people in European far North. Regardless, hair colour doesn't really mater. It just might be a side effect of very white mutations. We just don't know why yet.
Again, they can survive now. The new mutations can give them extra advantage.

Even animals can protect themselves from sun, so I think, that people could do the same in the past.

They are not more stupid than animals. I am sure of that.

There is a reason why arctic fox or polar bear don't live in Africa, or crocodiles and elephants in Siberia. All the animal species are adapted well to their environments. Otherwise why not?
Many animals would survive when transplant to foreign environment, granted the new environment is not drastically different. However giving them tens of thousands or a million years they would evolve to fit the environment much better. This is observable in every species, humans included, and also from archaeological sources.

Let assume.

This is much more easier!

In this theory, people came not from Adam and Eve, but from Noah, his three sons and three dauters in law.
So, they could be bearing 12 chromosoms for every genetic information. This pule were combined until they
were split somewhere in Mesopotamia in small patriarchal groups with their own language, they inbred
only inside their small group - and this could give every anthropological type which exist today.

This is just crazy. I hope you realize that. But for the heck of it, can you give us an example that inbreeding creates variety of looks. All the examples I know points otherwise. Look at secluded tribes in Amazon jungle or New Genie. All the tribe looks like brothers and sisters.

In that case, it is simple too. As you was somewhere writing, light pigmentation is onli a lacking of pigment. No big deal. It is not a new information, but lack of her.
If this happend in small group who after that grow in number - it is possible, like founder effect. But it is impossible in such huge territory like Europe and decide
by outside natural environment in many places of the continent in large gen-dominant population. In this laking of pigment accident ther is not need for laking of
sun, becouse albino live in Africa too. If they wouldn't be dispersal, you could have albino tribe in Africa as well. And they wouldn't be dead, because no one was
seeing massive albino deads because of the sun shining on the sky. This albino tribe must be very, very stupid and be sitting on the sun without clothing whole
days, day by day - this is illogical and impossible, and disproof your theory, that lacking of sun cousing lacking of pigment. Disproof also that mutation in many
places can dominate population - because albinos in Africa didn't dominate the population, even in one part of that continent. They could of course, but first they
should live together and after that grow in number and replaced totaly black people. It seems to be more planed action than only an accidance.

I'm having a difficulty following your thoughts. Can you write in more coherent style?

As I said above: in small groups which had their own combination of pool of gens. Some were missing some recombind, and after that grown in number.
do you think that for example "mongoloid-looking-feature" mutated and evolved in whole Asia in thousands of black-african-looking communities at the
same time? This would be a miracle indeed...

What pool of genes? They all come from one man and women, Noah and his wife.
Anyway, why genes would go missing or recombine, if by your assumption, they were already surviving fine in environment? If they are surviving, there is no need for any changes, right?

No, I don't want, but I strongly claim, that differences can only began to exist in small inbreding population, and enviorment
dosen't have anything to do with that, as I was ilustrate this with many proposals from differnet parts of the eath, and this
must happend with light pigmantation in european population. Some small tribe, whith light pigmentation grow in number and
after that dominate large parts of the continent either in creationist or evolutionary models, and this is most resonable explanation
without any hocus-pocus many places and endless thousands of years coincedences and bad nature environment in my opinion.

What the hell you're rambling about???!!!

 

[Maleth]

quoting = SUN PROTECTION IN THE SNOW

A bad case of sunburn can be extremely painful and definitely ruin a weekend or holiday in the snow. Even though temperatures may be extremely cold, the potential for sunburn can be very high.
The risk of sunburn is much greater in alpine regions than at sea level because the atmosphere is thinner and less pollution is present to filter out ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Snow can reflect almost 90% of UV radiation so UV rays are much more likely to burn areas such as your chin and nose. end quote

http://www.careinthesun.org/adults/sun-protection-in-the-snow

This is the tundra environment were inuits are found. Central and Northern Europe are temperate Oceanic zones with much more cloud cover higher precipitation that encourages Forest growth (if humans were not present of course) and soil generation (through high level of humus)

The Euro Mediterranean region then is totally different with less cloud cover higher UV but less solar reflection then thundra.

In many areas in North Africa and more soon off the coast the UV is even higher coast cloud cover becomes less and the solar reflaction is higher due to the light coloured terrain (except in some areas in Morroco around the Atlas mountains)

 

[Kardu]

And who decide? You, because you don't like my opinion and you are furious about that?



And I said only, that in eyes of europeans Georgians seems to be preety
dark. Do you want change my observation, because you are furious about
that? This is my opinion, and many others too and you cannot forbid our eyes
see what and how they see. This is not my fault, that you have some complexes
about darker pigmentation. This is your problem, not mine.



Are you normal or you forget some pills?

It's not opinion but t r o l l i n g

Where did I say anything about the pigmentation of Georgians in the matters discussed in this thread? Or a race for you is only about the skin color? That primitive Nordicisism can't be taken seriously, that's why i suspect you are t r o l l i n g intentionally

 

[Rethel]

Not true. From genomes of ancient hunter gathers, who lived in Scandinavia, we know that they were not as light skin as today's Scandinavians. The new mutations made them lighter, better fitting, healthier, having more kids. These new lighter genes spread through population, because they gave them advantage over others. They both could live there with their skin tones, yet the lighter mutations turned to be more beneficial, therefore wide spread today.

It is only a theory which is wishful thinking, because you don't have nothing better.
People there were living without that mutation, and still are living very well.
We can repeated the same over and over, but it not have sense.

Give us one example of black tribe who migrated to higher latitudes and survived their.

Black tribe don't migrited, but if some persons do this, they don't die, but mixed with the locals.
The most norther black tribe live in Abckazia. They are still feel very well. They dont die.
In Canada are living some black people too. They are probably still alive.
Eskimos, as you showed me yourselves are quite dark, but they didn't die.
You yourselves wrote, that black pepole came to Europe and colonized her.
They can lived here as blacks because otherwise, they either would be dead in short time, or would return to Africa.
They didn't. So they didn't need this mutation to survive, like Lapps didn't need this muteition for thusands of years either.

So, you have your examples.

Give us one example of white tribe who went to sub Saharan Africa and survived their.

Afrikaners lived very well, and are still alive. They are not dying because of sun.
Some tribe R1b V88 came to Africa and thise people are still alive, but they mixed with black locals.
Lemba tribe did the same. Some greeks are still living in Juba in Suoth Sudan.
Many Nordics are living in Rif, Kabylia, even in Sahara. They are still alive.... can you belive in that?!

Please, skip colonial times and modern populations, as due to technology, clothing, supplements people of all colour can live everywhere these days.

So, you have only a theory, which cannot be proofed, because no one ever was eye witness to whole this miracoules thousands of years...
But you still have people, who lived through this thousands of years and didn't have light mutations, and are still good. So, you must invite
fish, winds, diet and so on... but this is not reasonable, because by naked eye it is seeing, that they dont't need light mutation to survive,
and they didn't need this in paleolithic times through thousands of years either. This is totaly usefull theory and problem creating of nothing.
So, this multitude explanations are explanations of non existing problem. It is only problem for evolutionists, which must find some mulitiply
conspiracy theory because thay have this a little paranoic idea fix to explain everything from nothing always because of some need and use.

Just because they can survive, it doesn't mean that new better mutations can't pop up and give them more advantage in surviving. Again, if skin colour doesn't matter for surviving, why all people on earth are not black, like original out of Africa people? Why did they change if there was no need for a change?

Why you are always repeated that maust be some reason and need for changing?
If ther would be always a reason, then Indians would be totqaly diffrent, but they
all are the same - even Eskimos are the same colour as Amazonian Indians. Why???!
Why all north was/is populated by dank eyed i dark hired man, all of them have darker
(even a little) skin than nordics? Why mongoloids are living almost in every latitude, and
why south America isnt natural negroid continent? Where is you theory in that places?
Of course you must find (and you will!) some another explanation only because theory
must be right! Always!

From genomes of ancients, we know that whiter mutations showed up relatively recently. They didn't vanish, as you predicted for recessive genes, but conglomerated around Baltic and North Sea. Can you explain why these mutations like this area the most?

Because a people who lived there had this genes in their genom.
And if I explained it to you couple of times, if such mutations have
a place it had to be in very smoll population, and after that that
small population spread and dominate another populations.

By the way, why you everything must explain. In mutations there is no reason.
In albinism in africa is not reason at all. But it exist. And because it is rare, it
cannot dominate the population. If you take every albiono people together
you will have a pretty large tribe. And you don't need thousends of years.
By the way, through many years scientists were writing a fairy tales that blond
mutated hundrets of thousenads of years, they were creating many nonsensical
theories, and now it is known that blond mutation has... 5000 years...
so as you can see, all this theories are worth nothing.

It is not only about survival, but about advantage over other people.

So tell me, how mutations hg R advantage almost every other mutations in the world?
What is special in that mustation, that is most spreading mutation in the world? Expain
it by only natural elements without human action. I beg you, explain me this...

they also got Lactose Persistent genes,

I still don't have it, and I am alive after thousands of years... and I drink milk sometimes... this is miracle!

and farmer genes from the south. They are all improvements over old hunter gatherer population. Now they can produce more or faster vitamin D3, they can drink raw milk to survive in case crops fail, and being farmers they can feed 10 times bigger population than hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherers could just survive, the new improved Scandinavians are thriving there.

No, no, no!
They simple had better knowledge and more food because of that knowledge, and as a result, they were more numeriuos.

Not really, there are also blond Sami people in European far North.

They are blond, not because they eveolved, but because they mixed with Nordics from the south.
Don't try to pretend that you dont know that!

Regardless, hair colour doesn't really mater.

Now it doesn't matter...?

You was the one, who said that it matters, because the people could survive because of that color...

It just might be a side effect of very white mutations. We just don't know why yet.
Again, they can survive now. The new mutations can give them extra advantage.

So it matter or not?
Decide about survival or not?
Have a reason or not?

There is a reason why arctic fox or polar bear don't live in Africa, or crocodiles and elephants in Siberia. All the animal species are adapted well to their environments. Otherwise why not?

Black animals in arctica couldn't survive because they were good seeing... and people or predators can easly see and kill them.
Another reason is that, that they could be create on purpose to live in that envirornment. But people don't have need for a special
mascarade to survive, because they can survive everywhere where it is possible for man - it doesn't matter how he is coloured.

Many animals would survive when transplant to foreign environment, granted the new environment is not drastically different. However giving them tens of thousands or a million years they would evolve to fit the environment much better. This is observable in every species, humans included, and also from archaeological sources.

Not better, they either can survive or not. If they cant, they dont. Million of years it is to long to survive in bad enviroments. Look at Dinosaurs! They coudnt survive...

Humans... they are diffrent. They can create their own enviroment to survive. Otherwise Eskimos would be dead by now - they dont have sun, and they dont have blond hair...

This is just crazy. I hope you realize that. But for the heck of it, can you give us an example that inbreeding creates variety of looks. All the examples I know points otherwise.

You wanted this example, so I explained it to you.
You want next example... hmmm.. tell me, how were created all races of dogs?
Why greyhound looks totaly diffrent that yorkshire terrier?
How many milions of years was past to create such a diffrent types of dogs if every one comes from one kind of dogs?
And how many positive mutations necessary to survival have Chihuahua or YorkshireTerrier?

Look at secluded tribes in Amazon jungle or New Genie. All the tribe looks like brothers and sisters.

Yes! because they have the same gene pool.
One small tribe without any other variety which give the beginning of that people.
If at the beginning fisrt population would be mixed withe many varieties, then next tribes could be differet from each other.
And this happend in whole earth long time ago, so, next subtribes cannot change their limited genom pool.
And this is olso proof, that change doesnt come from nothing and dont create itselves.

I'm having a difficulty following your thoughts. Can you write in more coherent style?

Im trying

What pool of genes? They all come from one man and women, Noah and his wife.

And their sons had a children with whom?
And who said that:
- Noah had children only with one wife,
- that wife of Noah looks exactly the same as Noah,
- that they all have only AA type of gens?

Dauther in laws of Noah came from another people.
They could looks totaly different.

Anyway, why genes would go missing or recombine, if by your assumption, they were already surviving fine in environment? If they are surviving, there is no need for any changes, right?

Not right. This is your theory, not mine.
There is no need to a reason.
Blond or red hair does not decide about survival.
Only blind or deaf man cannot see or hear this.
To hunt a mammoth you dont need bolnd hair.
To invade another tribe - you don't need blond hair.
And as I show you, people without blond hair lived very well in the same environment.
The need for changes, aspecially for bond or blue eyes does not exist.
It is only a fantasy for theory which must explain why and for what.
But ther was no "why", and any "for what".
Hemophilia has no use and reason, but still exist.
Or maybe you can explain, why evolution evolved such a thing, for what reason?

 

[Rethel]

Kardu,
you are simply silly.

You still jugde in your own case.

How many warnings do you want give me because of your comlexes?
You dont like me? Dont read me.

You were asking about Georgians, why I and Aberdeen were thinking as we thinking.
I answered you - so you should give yourselves warnings for asking, not me for because I answered you.

Is there some anothers administrators on this forum who can do something whith that?

 

[Kardu]

Kardu,
you are simply silly.

You still jugde in your own case.

How many warnings do you want give me because of your comlexes?
You dont like me? Dont read me.

You were asking about Georgians, why I and Aberdeen were thinking as we thinking.
I answered you - so you should give yourselves warnings for asking, not me for because I answered you.

Is there some anothers administrators on this forum who can do something whith that?

So what did I exactly ask, you little t r o l l?

 

[LeBrok]

It is only a theory which is wishful thinking, because you don't have nothing better.

What I'm saying, is supported by many research in skin colour in climatic zones, diet, production of vitamin D3, and skin cancer. All of the body of research point to correlation and causation of these factors. It is a complete theory, which can explain every instance of human skin tone. Therefore it is the right one. That's how science work.

On other hand, we have a hodgepodge of your ideas which invoke supernatural forces or unproven phenomena to exist in order to justify them, and fails to consolidate known knowledge in a coherent hypothesis.

People there were living without that mutation, and still are living very well.
We can repeated the same over and over, but it not have sense.

Again, it doesn't stop or disprove future improvements/mutations. Just because you say that improvements are not needed, it doesn't stop them. Unless you have powers of god.

Black tribe don't migrited, but if some persons do this, they don't die, but mixed with the locals.
The most norther black tribe live in Abckazia. They are still feel very well. They dont die.

Except few very old pictures, there are no Blacks in Abkhazia today. Died out?
According to your premise, white skin is recessive, so black skin colour should spread in population and dominate white locals. It didn't happen, therefore it is wrong.

In Canada are living some black people too. They are probably still alive.

Mostly new arrivals, not many who emigrated hundred years ago.
Besides, I never said they dye right away. What happens is that, they are not the healthiest people from the lack of vitamin D, and are dying sooner with fewer children than lighter skin people. It also depends how long time they spend in the sun to produce D3, in recent years all the milk and other products are fortified with D3 to prevent deficiencies. Most affected are pregnant women and their babies.

Thanks to new technology we don't know how bad it used to be, and why our parents and grandparents were taking fish liver oil/tran regularly. If not they could get rickets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets

This is in case you don't know how important is D3 to our health. It is an eye opener, so please read.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...5/28/vitamin-d-deficiency-signs-symptoms.aspx

Eskimos, as you showed me yourselves are quite dark, but they didn't die.

Either you are blind or have over hyper fantasy.

You yourselves wrote, that black pepole came to Europe and colonized her.

You don't understand what you read. I said Black people left Africa, I never said they lived in Europe.

Afrikaners lived very well, and are still alive. They are not dying because of sun.
Some tribe R1b V88 came to Africa and thise people are still alive,

How came they are alive now, if it happened thousands of years ago? Do you realize how backward your logic is?

but they mixed with black locals.
Lemba tribe did the same. Some greeks are still living in Juba in Suoth Sudan.

Only Y chromosome survived, not the white people. Autonomously they all are like any other locals.

Many Nordics are living in Rif, Kabylia, even in Sahara. They are still alive.... can you belive in that?!

Why shouldn't I. It was me who said that thanks to clothing and technology people can live everywhere these days, didn't I? Please read with comprehension.

Why you are always repeated that maust be some reason and need for changing?
If ther would be always a reason, then Indians would be totqaly diffrent, but they
all are the same - even Eskimos are the same colour as Amazonian Indians.

Again, you are either blind or a liar. The darkest American Natives are from Mexican plateau where radiation is strongest in America. The lightest are the Inuits. It is in agreement with UV radiation map I posted above.

Because a people who lived there had this genes in their genom.
And if I explained it to you couple of times, if such mutations have
a place it had to be in very smoll population, and after that that
small population spread and dominate another populations.

Explain again why we have so diverse populations of people if we started from one small group? I would like to noticed that you failed to give even one real life example of diversity coming from a small group of people.

On other hand the "positive/advantageous mutation in relation with environment" theory eloquently explains why people are different around the plant. That's how science works.

By the way, why you everything must explain. In mutations there is no reason.

Because this is how science works! Everything needs to be explained in order to understand how it works. If you fallowed the science I wouldn't need to lose my time to explain how things work.

In albinism in africa is not reason at all. But it exist.

That's a perfect example of mutations popping up randomly. In this case it is not a positive mutation and people don't live too long with it or their kids. It is weeded out quickly.

And because it is rare, it
cannot dominate the population

. Not because it is rare, but because it is a bad mutation. People don't live too long with it. How many times I have to explain that there are good and bad mutations, advantage versus disadvantage in environment.

So tell me, how mutations hg R advantage almost every other mutations in the world?
What is special in that mustation, that is most spreading mutation in the world? Expain
it by only natural elements without human action. I beg you, explain me this..

. Humans are nature, and humans actions are nature too.
Obviously there was an advantage involved in it. We don't know exactly which one yet.

I still don't have it, and I am alive after thousands of years... and I drink milk sometimes... this is miracle!

Ridiculous statement. Don't compare your life to life of people in middle ages or anywhere in history. We live now in unique times, especially in the West, where no one dies of hunger anymore. This never happened in human history.
If you were dying of hunger you would even try to chew wood, but unlike milk, wood wouldn't give you calories to survive.

Now it doesn't matter...?

You was the one, who said that it matters, because the people could survive because of that color...

Colour of the skin. Read with comprehension.

Black animals in arctica couldn't survive because they were good seeing... and people or predators can easly see and kill them.

I have no idea what you say here.

Not better, they either can survive or not. If they cant, they dont. Million of years it is to long to survive in bad enviroments. Look at Dinosaurs! They coudnt survive...

The environment changed quickly due to a big disaster, hit of a comet, huge volcanic activity or something like this. 80% of species survived this catastrophe anyway, with crocodiles, sharks, mammals, and many birds which are actually feathered dinosaurs.
I'm sure you realize how life on earth changed even in last 10 million years. Almost all animals evolved and changed, with hominids included. It is impossible to explain without new mutations and natural selection.

Humans... they are diffrent. They can create their own enviroment to survive. Otherwise Eskimos would be dead by now - they dont have sun,

Wasn't it you who posted Eskimo with suntanned faces? Now you claim they don't have sun? I'm sure I mentioned couple of times already that they supplemented vitamin D with raw liver diet. The vital information which you chose to ignore.

You wanted this example, so I explained it to you.
You want next example... hmmm.. tell me, how were created all races of dogs?
Why greyhound looks totaly diffrent that yorkshire terrier?
How many milions of years was past to create such a diffrent types of dogs if every one comes from one kind of dogs?
And how many positive mutations necessary to survival have Chihuahua or YorkshireTerrier?

Dogs has been bread by people for about 30 thousand years, by way of allowing only bread dogs with traits selected by people. Mutations still happen blindly, but People act as positive selection force for these mutations, choosing the dogs they like. Change people with environment and you can understand how natural selection works. Many breads of dogs would not survive in wild. They only exist thanks to human help.

Yes! because they have the same gene pool.
One small tribe without any other variety which give the beginning of that people.
If at the beginning fisrt population would be mixed withe many varieties,

What many varieties?!!! They come from same parents and grandparents. They are all the same. In your hypothesis the variety always shows up from nothing, lol. Change your miracle with spontaneous positive and negative mutations and you will understand how nature works.
This is not

And their sons had a children with whom?
And who said that:
- Noah had children only with one wife,
- that wife of Noah looks exactly the same as Noah,
- that they all have only AA type of gens?

Dauther in laws of Noah came from another people.
They could looks totaly different.

Then go back to Adam and Eve and try to explain. You would need to assume that god create black Adam and white Eve, to accommodate all colour of skin without evoking positive and negative mutations to exist. Also they would already have genes for lactose persistence, malaria resistance and sickle cell anemia, and all other existing variety of genes. Their genome would need to be 100 times bigger to accommodate all the varieties. This is nuts.

Not right. This is your theory, not mine.
There is no need to a reason.
Blond or red hair does not decide about survival.To hunt a mammoth you dont need bolnd hair.

Actually, blond hair and light eyes can give a better camouflage for hunting in the snow. It is just an idea. Nobody cared to make a hypothesis out of it. Or as well it might be a side effect of many whitening genes.
I'm not sure why you bringing hair colour to the equation when we are arguing about effects of skin colour on surviving of people.

Hemophilia has no use and reason, but still exist.

neither albinism in Africa. These are examples that mutations happen all the time. In both examples the mutation is not beneficial and dies out quickly with individual. If they were beneficial we would see most of population being albino and hemophiliac. I hope this is simple enough to finally grasp the science behind it.

Mutations happen all the time even in adults. Bad mutations are a reason behind all cancers. This is a scientific fact.
Either you want to understand the world, or live in you fantasy world. Your choice.